Skip to main content

Full text of "Peter Kropotkin entry on 'anarchism' from the Encyclopaedia Britannica (eleventh ed.)"

See other formats



was originally built in 1781 as a frontier fortress of the Turks 
against Russia. Three times captured by the Russians, in 1791, 
1807 and 1828, and twice restored by them, in 1792 and 1812, 
it was finally left in their hands by the treaty of Adrianople in 
1829. During the Crimean War its fortifications were destroyed 
(1855) by the Russians themselves. Pop. (1897) 6676. 

ANAPAEST (from Gr. ava-rraio-Tos, reversed), a metrical foot 
consisting of three syllables, the first two short and the third 
long and accented; so called as the reverse of a dactyl, 
which has the first a long syllable, followed by two short ones. 
An anapaestic verse is one which only contains, or is mostly 
made up of, anapaestic feet. 

ANARCHISM (from the Gr. av-, and apxi?, contrary to 
authority), the name given to a principle or theory of life and 
conduct under which society is conceived without government 
— harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission 
to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements 
concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, 
freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, 
as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and 
aspirations of a civilized being. In a society developed on these 
lines, the voluntary associations which already now begin to 
cover all the fields of human activity would take a still greater 
extension so as to substitute themselves for the state in all its 
functions. They would represent an interwoven network, com- 
pose I of an infinite variety of groups and federations of all sizes 
and degrees, local, regional, national and international — 
temporary or more or less permanent — for all possible purposes: 
production, consumption and exchange, communications, 
sanitary arrangements, education, mutual protection, defence 
of the territory, and so on; and, on the other side, for the 
satisfaction of an ever-increasing number of scientific, artistic, 
literary and sociable needs. Moreover, such a society would 
represent nothing immutable. On the contrary — as is seen in 
organic life at large — harmony would (it is contended) result 
from an ever-changing adjustment and readjustment of equili- 
brium between the multitudes of forces and influences, and this 
adjustment would be the easier to obtain as none of the forces 
would enjoy a special protection from the state. 

If, it is contended, society were organized on these principles, 
man would not be limited in the free exercise of his powers in 
productive work by a capitalist monopoly, maintained by the 
state; nor would he be limited in the exercise of his will by a 
fear of punishment, or by obedience towards individuals or 
metaphysical entities, which both lead to depression of initiative 
and servility of mind. He would be guided in his actions by 
his own understanding, which necessarily would bear the impres- 
sion of a free action and reaction between his own self and the 
ethical conceptions of his surroundings. Man would thus be 
enabled to obtain the full development of all his faculties, 
intellectual, artistic and moral, without being hampered by 
overwork for the monopolists, or by the servility and inertia 
of mind of the great number. He would thus be able to reach 
full individualization, which is not possible either under the 
present system of individualism, or under any system of state- 
socialism in the so-called Volkstaat (popular state). 

The Anarchist writers consider, moreover, that their conception 
is not a Utopia, constructed on the a priori method, after a few 
desiderata have been taken as postulates. It is derived, they 
maintain, from an analysis of tendencies that are at work already, 
even though state socialism may find a temporary favour with 
the reformers. The progress of modern technics, which wonder- 
fully simplifies the production of all the necessaries of life; 
the growing spirit of independence, and the rapid spread of free 
initiative and free understanding in all branches of activity — 
including those which formerly were considered as the proper 
attribution of church and state — are steadily reinforcing the 
no-government tendency. 

As to their economical conceptions, the Anarchists, in common 
with all Socialists, of whom they constitute the left wing, maintain 
that the now prevailing system of private ownership in land, and 
our capitalist production for the sake of profits, represent a 

monopoly which runs against both the principles of justice and 
the dictates of utility. They are the main obstacle which 
prevents the successes of modern technics from being brought into 
the service of all, so as to produce general well-being. The 
Anarchists consider the wage-system and capitalist production 
altogether as an obstacle to progress. But they point out also 
that the state was, and continues to be, the chief instrument 
for permitting the few to monopolize the land, and the capitalists 
to appropriate for themselves a quite disproportionate share of 
the yearly accumulated surplus of production. Consequently, 
while combating the present monopolization of land, and 
capitalism altogether, the Anarchists combat with the same 
energy the state, as the main support of that system. Not this 
or that special form, but the state altogether, whether it be a 
monarchy or even a republic governed by means of the referendum. 

The state organization, having always been; both in ancient 
and modern history (Macedonian empire, Roman empire, modern 
European states grown up on the ruins of the autonomous cities), 
the instrument for establishing monopolies in favour of the ruling 
minorities, cannot be made to work for the destruction of these 
monopolies. The Anarchists consider, therefore, that to hand 
over to the state all the main sources of economical life — the land, 
the mines, the railways, banking, insurance, and so on — as also 
the management of all the main branches of industry, in addition 
to all the functions already accumulated in its hands (education, 
state-supported religions, defence of the territory, &c), would 
mean to create a new instrument of tyranny. State capitalism 
would only increase the powers of bureaucracy and capitalism. 
True progress lies in the direction of decentralization, both 
territorial and functional, in the development of the spirit of 
local and personal initiative, and of free federation from the 
simple to the compound, in lieu of the present hierarchy from the 
centre to the periphery. 

In common with most Socialists, the Anarchists recognize 
that, like all evolution in nature, the slow evolution of society 
is followed from time to time by periods of accelerated evolution 
which are called revolutions; and they think that the era of 
revolutions is not yet closed. Periods of rapid changes will 
follow the periods of slow evolution, and these periods must be 
taken advantage of — not for increasing and widening the powers 
of the state, but for reducing them, through the organization 
in every township or commune of the local groups of producers 
and consumers, as also the regional, and eventually the 
international, federations of these groups. 

In virtue of the above principles the Anarchists refuse to be 
party to the present state organization and to support it by 
infusing fresh blood into it. They do not seek to constitute, 
and invite the working men not to constitute, political parties 
in the parliaments. Accordingly, since the foundation of the 
International Working Men's Association in 1864-1866, they 
have endeavoured to promote their ideas directly amongst the 
labour organizations and to induce those unions to a direct 
struggle against capital, without placing their faith in parlia- 
mentary legislation. 

The Historical Development of Anarchism. — The conception of 
society just sketched, and the tendency which is its dynamic 
expression, have always existed in mankind, in opposition to 
the governing hierarchic conception and tendency — now the 
one and now the other taking the upper hand at different periods 
of history. To the former tendency we owe the evolution, by 
the masses themselves, of those institutions — the clan, the 
village community, the gild, the free medieval city — by means 
of which the masses resisted the encroachments of the con- 
querors a^id the power-seeking minorities. The same tendency 
asserted itself with great energy in the great religious movements 
of medieval times, especially in the early movements of the 
reform and its forerunners. At the same time it evidently found 
its expression in the writings of some thinkers, since the times 
of Lao-tsze, although, owing to its non-scholastic and popular 
origin, it obviously found less sympathy among the scholars 
than the opposed tendency. 

As has been pointed out by Prof. Adler in his Geschichte des 



Sozialismus und Kommunismus, Aristippus (b. c. 430 B.C.), 
one of the founders of the Cyrenaic school, already taught that 
the wise must not give up their liberty to the state, and in reply 
to a question by Socrates he said that he did not desire to belong 
either to the governing or the governed class. Such an attitude, 
however, seems to have been dictated merely by an Epicurean 
attitude towards the life of the masses. 

The best exponent of Anarchist philosophy in ancient Greece 
was Zeno (342-267 or 270 B.C.), from Crete, the founder of the 
Stoic philosophy, who distinctly opposed his conception of a 
free community without government to the state-Utopia of 
Plato. He repudiated the omnipotence of the state, its inter- 
vention and regimentation, and proclaimed the sovereignty of the 
moral law of the individual — -remarking already that, while the 
necessary instinct of self-preservation leads man to egotism, 
nature has supplied a corrective to it by providing man with 
another instinct — that of sociability. When men are reasonable 
enough to follow their natural instincts, they will unite across 
the frontiers and constitute the Cosmos. They will have no need 
of law-courts or police, will have no temples and no public 
worship, and use no money — free gifts taking the place of the 
exchanges. Unfortunately, the writings of Zeno have not 
reached us and are only known through fragmentary quotations. 
However, the fact that his very wording is similar to the wording 
now in use, shows how deeply is laid the tendency of human 
nature of which he was the mouth-piece. 

In medieval times we find the same views on the state 
expressed by the illustrious bishop of Alba, Marco Girolamo Vida, 
in his first dialogue De dignitate reipublicae (Ferd. Cavalli, in 
Mem. dell' Istituto Veneto, xiii.; Dr E. Nys, Researches in the 
History of Economics). But it is especially in several early 
Christian movements, beginning with the 9th century in Armenia, 
and in the preachings of the early Hussites, particularly Chojecki, 
and the early Anabaptists, especially Hans Denk (cf. Keller, 
Ein Apostel der Wiedertaufer), that one finds the same ideas 
forcibly expressed — special stress being laid of course on their 
moral aspects. 

Rabelais and Fenelon, in their Utopias, have also expressed 
similar ideas, and they were also current in the 18th century 
amongst the French Encyclopaedists, as may be concluded from 
separate expressions occasionally met with in the writings of 
Rousseau, from Diderot's Preface to the Voyage of Bougainville, 
and so on. However, in all probability such ideas could not be 
developed then, owing to the rigorous censorship of the Roman 
Catholic Church. 

These ideas found their expression later during the great 
French Revolution. While the Jacobins did all in their power 
to centralize everything in the hands of the government, it 
appears now, from recently published documents, that the 
masses of the people, in their municipalities and " sections," 
accomplished a considerable constructive work. They appro- 
priated for themselves the election of the judges, the organization 
of supplies and equipment for the army, as also for the large 
cities, work for the unemployed, the management of charities, 
and so on. They even tried to establish a direct correspondence 
between the 36,000 communes of France through the inter- 
mediary of a special board, outside the National Assembly (cf. 
Sigismund Lacroix, Actes de la commune de Paris). 

It was Godwin, in his Enquiry concerning Political Justice 
(2 vols., 1793), who was the first to formulate the political and 
economical conceptions of Anarchism, even though he did not 
give that name to the ideas developed in his remarkable work. 
Laws, he wrote, are not a product of the wisdom of our ancestors: 
they are the product of their passions, their timidity, their 
jealousies and their ambition. The remedy they offer is worse 
than the evils they pretend to cure. If and only if all laws and 
courts were abolished, and the decisions in the arising contests 
were left to reasonable men chosen for that purpose, real justice 
would gradually be evolved. As to the state, Godwin frankly 
claimed its abolition. A society, he wrote, can perfectly well 
exist without any government: only the communities should 
be small and perfectly autonomous. Speaking of property, he 

stated that the rights of every one " to every substance capable of 
contributing to the benefit of a human being " must be regulated 
by justice alone: the substance must go " to him who most 
wants it." His conclusion was Communism. Godwin, however, 
had not the courage to maintain his opinions. He entirely 
rewrote later on his chapter on property and mitigated his 
Communist views in the second edition of Political Justice 
(8vo, 1796). 

Proudhon was the first to use, in 1840 (Qu'est-ce que Id pro- 
pri&U? first memoir), the name of Anarchy with application to 
the no-government state of society. The name of " Anarchists " 
had been freely applied during the French Revolution by the 
Girondists to those revolutionaries who did not consider that the 
task of the Revolution was accomplished with the overthrow 
of Louis XVI., and insisted upon a series of economical measures 
being taken (the abolition of feudal rights without redemption, 
the return to the village communities of the communal lands 
enclosed since 1669, the limitation of landed property to 120 
acres, progressive income-tax, the national organization of 
exchanges on a just value basis, which already received a begin- 
ning of practical realization, and so on). 

Now Proudhon advocated a society without government, and 
used the word Anarchy to describe it. Proudhon repudiated, 
as is known, all schemes of Communism, according to which 
mankind would be driven into communistic monasteries or 
barracks, as also all the schemes of state or state-aided Socialism 
which were advocated by Louis Blanc and the Collectivists. When 
he proclaimed in his first memoir on property that " Property 
is theft," he meant only property in its present, Roman-law, 
sense of " right of use and abuse " ; in property-rights, on the other 
hand, understood in the limited sense of possession, he saw the 
best protection against the encroachments of the state. At the 
same time he did not want violently to dispossess the present 
owners of land, dwelling-houses, mines, factories and so on. He 
preferred to attain the same end by rendering capital incapable 
of earning interest; and this he proposed to obtain by means of 
a national bank, based on the mutual confidence of all those who 
are engaged in production, who would agree to exchange among 
themselves their produces at cost-value, by means of labour 
cheques representing the hours of labour required to produce 
every given commodity. Under such a system, which Proudhon 
described as " Mutuellisme," all the exchanges of services would be 
strictly equivalent. Besides, such a bank would be enabled to 
lend money without interest, levying only something like 1 %, 
or even less, for covering the cost of administration. Every one 
being thus enabled to borrow the money that would be required 
to buy a house, nobody would agree to pay any more a yearly 
rent for the use of it. A general " social liquidation " would 
thus be rendered easy, without violent expropriation. The same 
applied to mines, railways, factories and so on. 

In a society of this type the state would be useless. The chief 
relations between citizens would be based on free agreement and 
regulated by mere account keeping. The contests might be 
settled by arbitration. A penetrating criticism of the state and 
all possible forms of government, and a deep insight into all 
economic problems, were well-known characteristics of Proudhon's 

It is worth noticing that French mutualism had its precursor 
in England, in William Thompson, who began by mutualism 
before he became a Communist, and in his followers John Gray 
(A Lecture on Human Happiness, 1825; The Social System, 1831) 
and J. F. Bray (Labour's Wrongs and Labour's Remedy, 1839). 
It had also its precursor in America. Josiah Warren, who was 
born in 1798 (cf. W. Bailie, Josiah Warren, the First American 
Anarchist, Boston, 1900), and belonged to Owen's " New 
Harmony," considered that the failure of this enterprise was 
chiefly due to the suppression of individuality and the lack of 
initiative and responsibility. These defects, he taught, were 
inherent to every scheme based upon authority and the com- 
munity of goods. He advocated, therefore, complete individual 
liberty. In 1827 he opened in Cincinnati a little country store 
which was the first " Equity Store," and which the people called 

9-i 6 


" Time Store," because it was based on labour being exchanged 
hour for hour in all sorts of produce. " Cost — the limit of 
price," and consequently " no interest," was the motto of his 
store, and later on of his " Equity Village," near New York, 
which was still in existence in 1865. Mr Keith's " House of 
Equity " at Boston, founded in 1855, is also worthy of notice. 

While the economical, and especially the mutual-banking, 
ideas of Proudhon found supporters and even a practical applica- 
tion in the United States, his political conception of Anarchy 
found but little echo in France, where the Christian Socialism 
of Lamennais and the Fourierists, and the State Socialism of 
Louis Blanc and the followers of Saint-Simon, were dominating. 
These ideas found, however, some temporary support among the 
left-wing Hegelians in Germany, Moses Hess in 1843, an d Karl 
Griin in 1845, who advocated Anarchism. Besides, the authori- 
tarian Communism of Wilhelm Wei tling having given origin to 
opposition amongst the Swiss working men, Wilhelm Marr gave 
expression to it in the 'forties. 

On the other side, Individualist Anarchism found, also in 
Germany, its fullest expression in Max Stirner (Kaspar Schmidt), 
whose remarkable works (Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum and 
articles contributed to the Rheinische Zeitung) remained quite 
overlooked until they were brought into prominence by John 
Henry Mackay. 

Prof. V. Basch, in a very able introduction to his interesting 
book, L'lndividualisme anarchiste: Max Stirner (1904), has 
shown how the development of the German philosophy from Kant 
to Hegel, and " the absolute " of Schelling and the Geist of 
Hegel, necessarily provoked, when the anti-Hegelian revolt began, 
the preaching of the same " absolute " in the camp of the rebels. 
This was done by Stirner, who advocated, not only a complete 
revolt against the state and against the servitude which authori- 
tarian Communism would impose upon men, but also the full 
liberation of the individual from all social and moral bonds — the 
rehabilitation of the " I," the supremacy of the individual, 
complete " a-moralism," and the " association of the egotists." 
The final conclusion of that sort of Individual Anarchism has 
been indicated by Prof. Basch. It maintains that the aim of all 
superior civilization is, not to permit all members of the com- 
munity to develop in a normal way, but to permit certain better 
endowed individuals " fully to develop," even at the cost of the 
happiness and the very existence of the mass of mankind. It is 
thus a return towards the most common individualism, advocated 
by all the would-be superior minorities, to which indeed man owes 
in his history precisely the state and the rest, which these 
individualists combat. Their individualism goes so far as to end 
in a negation of their own starting-point, — to say nothing of the 
impossibility for the individual to attain a really full development 
in the conditions of oppression of the masses by the " beautiful 
aristocracies." His development would remain uni-lateral. 
This is why this direction of thought, notwithstanding its un- 
doubtedly correct and useful advocacy of the full development 
of each individuality, finds a hearing only in limited artistic and 
literary circles. 

Anarchism in the International Working Men's Association. — 
A general depression in the propaganda of all fractions of 
Socialism followed, as is known, after the defeat of the uprising 
of the Paris working men in June 1848 and the fall of the 
Republic. All the Socialist press was gagged during the reaction 
period, which lasted fully twenty years. Nevertheless, even 
Anarchist thought began to make some progress, namely in the 
writings of Bellegarrique (Cceurderoy), and especially Joseph 
Dejacque (Les Lazar&ennes, L'Humanisphere, an Anarchist- 
Communist Utopia, lately discovered and reprinted). The 
Socialist movement revived only after 1864, when some French 
working men, all " rnutualists," meeting in London during the 
Universal Exhibition with English followers of Robert Owen, 
founded the International Working Men's Association. This 
association developed very rapidly and adopted a policy of direct 
economical struggle against capitalism, without interfering in 
the political parliamentary agitation, and this policy was followed 
until 1871. However, after the Franco-German War, when the 

International Association was prohibited in France after tin 
Uprising of the Commune, the German working men, who hao 
received manhood suffrage for elections to the newly constituted 
imperial parliament, insisted upon modifying the tactics of the 
International, and began to build up a Social-Democratic 
political party. This soon led to a division in the Working Men's 
Association, and the Latin federations, Spanish, Italian, Belgian 
and Jurassic (France could not be represented), constituted 
among themselves a Federal union which broke entirely with the 
Marxist general council of the International. Within these 
federations developed now what may be described as modern 
Anarchism. After the names of " Federalists " and " Anti- 
authoritarians " had been used for some time by these federations 
the name of " Anarchists," which their adversaries insisted upon 
applying to them, prevailed, and finally it was revindicated. 

Bakunin (q.v.) soon became the leading spirit among these 
Latin federations for the development of the principles of 
Anarchism, which he did in a number of writings, pamphlets 
and letters. He demanded the complete abolition of the state, 
which—he wrote— is a product of religion, belongs to a lower 
state of civilization, represents the negation of liberty, and spoils 
even that which it undertakes to do for the sake of general well- 
being. The state was an historically necessary evil, but its 
complete extinction will be, sooner or later, equally necessary; 
Repudiating all legislation, even when issuing from universal 
suffrage, Bakunin claimed for each nation, each region and each 
commune, full autonomy, so long as it is not a menace to its 
neighbours, and full independence for the individual, adding 
that one becomes really free only when, and in proportion as, 
all others are free. Free federations of the communes would 
constitute free nations. 

As to his economical conceptions, Bakunin described himself, 
in common with his Federalist comrades of the International 
(Cesar De Paepe, James Guillaume Schwitzguebel) , a " Collecti- 
vist Anarchist " — not in the sense of Vidal and Pecqueur in the 
'forties, or of their modern Social-Democratic followers, but to 
express a state of things in which all necessaries for production 
are owned in common by the Labour groups and the free com- 
munes, while the ways of retribution of labour, Communist or 
otherwise, would be settled by each group for itself. Social 
revolution, the near approach of which was foretold at that time 
by all Socialists, would be the means of bringing into life the new 

The Jurassic, the Spanish, and the Italian federations and 
sections of the International Working Men's Association, as also' 
the French, the German and the American Anarchist groups, 
were for the next years the chief centres of Anarchist thought 
and propaganda. They refrained from any participation in 
parliamentary politics, and always kept in close contact with the 
Labour organizations. However, in the second half of the 
'eighties and the early 'nineties of the 19th century, when the 
influence of the Anarchists began to be felt in strikes, in the 
1 st of May demonstrations, where they promoted the idea of a 
general strike for an eight hours' day, and in the anti-militarist 
propaganda in the army, violent prosecutions were directed 
against them, especially in the Latin countries (including physical 
torture in the Barcelona Castle) and the United States (the 
execution of five Chicago Anarchists in 1887). Against these 
prosecutions the Anarchists retaliated by acts of violence which 
in their turn were followed by more executions from above, and 
new acts of revenge from below. This created in the general 
public the impression that violence is the substance of Anarchism, 
a view repudiated by its supporters, who hold that in reality 
violence is resorted to by all parties in proportion as their open 
action is obstructed by repression, and exceptional laws render 
them outlaws. (Cf . Anarchism and Outrage, by C. M. Wilson, and 
Report of the Spanish Atrocities Committee, in " Freedom Pam- 
phlets"; A Concise History of the Great Trial of the Chicago 
Anarchists, by Dyer Lum (New York, 1886); The Chicago 
Martyrs: Speeches, &C.). 1 

1 It is important to remember that the term " Anarchist " is 
inevitably rather loosely used in public, in connexion with the authors 



Anarchism continued to develop, partly in the direction of 
Proudhonian " Mutuellisme," but chiefly as Communist-Anar- 
chism, to which a third direction, Christian-Anarchism, was 
added by Leo Tolstoy, and a fourth, which might be ascribed as 
literary-Anarchism, began amongst some prominent modern 

The ideas of Proudhon, especially as regards mutual banking, 
Corresponding with those of Josiah Warren, found a considerable 
following in the United States, creating quite a school, of which 
the main writers are Stephen Pearl Andrews, William Grene, 
Lysander Spooner (who began to write in 1850, and whose 
unfinished work, Natural Law, was full of promise), and several 
others, whose names will be found in Dr Nettlan's Bibliographic 
de I'anarchie. 

A prominent position among the Individualist Anarchists 
in America has been occupied by Benjamin R. Tucker, whose 
journal Liberty was started in 1881 and whose conceptions are 
a combination of those of Proudhon with those of Herbert Spencer. 
Starting from the statement that Anarchists are egotists, strictly 
speaking, and that every group of individuals, be it a secret league 
of a few persons, or the Congress of the United States, has the right 
to oppress all mankind, provided it has the power to do so, that 
equal liberty for all and absolute equality ought to be the law, 
and " mind every one your own business " is the unique moral 
law of Anarchism, Tucker goes on to prove that a general and 
thorough application of these principles would be beneficial and 
would offer no danger, because the powers of every individual 
would be limited by the exercise of the equal rights of all others. 

of a certain class of murderous outrages, and that the same looseness 
of definition often applies to the professions of " Anarchism " made 
by such persons. As stated above, a philosophic Anarchist would 
repudiate the connexion. And the general public view which 
regards Anarchist doctrines indiscriminately is to that extent a 
confusion of terms. But the following resume of the chief modern 
so-called " Anarchist " incidents is appended for convenience in 
stating the facts under the heading where a reader would expect to 
find them. 

Between 1882 and 1886, in France, Prince Kropotkin, Louise 
Michel and others were imprisoned. In England, Most, one of the 
German Anarchist leaders, founded Die Freiheit, and, for defending 
in it the assassination of Alexander II. at St Petersburg, was sen- 
tenced to eighteen months' imprisonment with hard labour. After 
this he moved to the United States, and re-established his paper there 
in New York, in May 1 886. During this period there were several 
Anarchist congresses in the United States. In one at Albany, in 
1878, the revolutionary element, led by Justus Schwab, broke away 
from the others; at Allegheny City, in 1879, again there was a 
rupture between the peaceful and the revolutionary sections. The 
Voice of the People at St Louis, the Arbeiter Zeitung at Chicago, and 
the Anarchist at Boston, were the organs of the revolutionary 
element. In 1883, at Pittsburg, a congress of twenty-eight delegates, 
representing twenty-two towns, drew up an address to the working 
men of America. The programme it proposed was as follows: — 

First, Destruction of the existing class rule by all means, i.e. 
energetic, relentless, revolutionary and international action. 

Second, Establishment of a free society, based upon co-operative 
organization of production. 

Third, Free exchange of equivalent products by and between the 
productive organizations, without commerce and profit-mongery. 

FouHh, Organization of education on a secular, scientific and 
equal basis for both sexes. 

Fifth, Equal rights for all, without distinction of sex or race. 

Sixth, Regulation of all public affairs by free contracts between 
the autonomous (independent) communes and associations, resting 
on a federalistic basis. 

This, together with an appeal to the working men to organize, 
was published in Chicago, November 1883, by a local committee of 
four, representing French, Bohemian, German and English sections, 
the head of the last being August Spies, who was hanged in 1887 for 
participation in the Haymarket affair in Chicago, 4th May 1886. 
This affair was the culmination of a series of encounters between 
the Chicago working men and the police, which had covered several 
years. The meeting of 4th May was called by Spies and others to 
protest against the action of the police, by whom several working 
men had been killed in collisions growing out of the efforts to intro- 
duce the eight hours' day. The mayor of the city attended the 
meeting, but, finding it peaceful, went home. The meeting was 
subsequently entered by the police and commanded to disperse. 
A bomb was thrown, several policemen being killed and a number 
■wounded. For this crime eight men were tried in one panel and 
condemned, seven — Spies, Parsons, Engel, Fischer, Fielden, Schwab, 
and Ling — to death, and one — Neebe — to imprisonment for fifteen 

He further indicated (following H. Spencer) the difference which 
exists between the encroachment on somebody's rights and 
resistance to such an encroachment; between domination and 
defence: the former being equally condemnable, whether it be 
encroachment of a criminal upon an individual, or the encroach- 
ment of one upon all others, or of all others upon one; while 
resistance to encroachment is defensible and necessary. For 
their self-defence, both the citizen and the group have the right 
to any violence, including capital punishment. Violence is also 
justified for enforcing the duty of keeping an agreement. Tucker 
thus follows Spencer, and, like him, opens (in the present writer's 
opinion) the way for reconstituting under the heading of 
" defence " all the functions of the state. His criticism of the 
present state is very searching, and his defence of the rights of 
the individual very powerful. As regards his economical views 
B. R. Tucker follows Proudhon. 

The Individualist Anarchism of the American Proudhonians 
finds, however, but little sympathy amongst the working masses. 
Those who profess it — they are chiefly " intellectuals " — soon 
realize that the individualization they so highly praise is not 
attainable by individual efforts, and either abandon the ranks of 
the Anarchists, and are driven into the Liberal individualism 
of the classical economists, or they retire into a sort of Epicurean 
a-moralism, or super-man-theory, similar to that of Stirner and 
Nietzsche. The great bulk of the Anarchist working men prefer 
the Anarchist-Communist ideas which have gradually evolved out 
of the Anarchist Collectivism of the International Working Men's 
Association. To this direction belong — to name only the better 

years. The sentences on Fielden and Schwab were commuted by 
Governor Oglesby to imprisonment for life, on the recommendation 
of the presiding judge and the prosecuting attorney. Ling com- 
mitted suicide in jail, and Spies, Parsons, Engel and Fischer were 
hanged, nth November 1887. On 26th June 1893 an unconditional 
pardon was granted the survivors, Fielden, Schwab and Neebe, by 
Governor Altgeld. The reasons for the pardon were stated by the 
governor to be that, upon an examination of the records he found 
that the jury had not been drawn in the usual manner, but by a 
special bailiff, who made his own selection and had summoned a 
' prejudiced jury "; that the " state had never discovered who it 
was that threw the bomb which killed the policemen, and the 
evidence does not show any connexion whatever between the de- 
fendants and the man who did throw it," ... or that this man 
" ever heard or read a word coming from the defendants, and conse- 
quently fails to show that he acted on any advice given by them." 
Judge Gary, the judge at the trial, published a defence of its pro- 
cedure in the Century Magazine., vol. xxiii p. 803. 

A number of outbreaks in later years were attributed to the propa- 
ganda of reform by revolution, like those in Spain and France in 
1892, in which Ravachol was a prominent figure. In 1893 a bomb 
was exploded in the French Chamber of Deputies by Vaillant. The 
spirit of these men is well illustrated by the reply which Vaillant 
made to the judge who reproached him for endangering the lives 
of innocent men and women: " There can be no innocent bour- 
geois." In 1894 there was an explosion in a Parisian cafe, and 
another in a theatre at Barcelona. For the latter outrage six men 
were executed. President Carnot of the French Republic was 
assassinated by an Italian at Lyons in the same year. The empress 
Elizabeth of Austria was assassinated in September 1898. These 
events, all associated by the public with " Anarchism," led to the 
passage by the United States Congress of a law, in 1894, to keep 
out foreign Anarchists, and to deport any who might be found in the 
country, and also to the assemblage of an international conference 
in Rome, in 1898, to agree upon some plan for dealing with these 
revolutionists. It was proposed that their offences should no longer 
be classed as political, but as common-law crimes, and be made 
subject to extradition. The suppression of the revolutionary press 
and the international co-operation of the police were also suggested. 
The results of the conference were not, however, published; and 
the question of how to deal with the campaign against society fell 
for a while into abeyance. The attempt made by the youth Sipido 
on the (then) prince of Wales at Brussels in 1900 recalled attention 
to the subject. The acquittal of Sipido, and the failure of the 
Belgian government to see that justice was done in an affair of such 
international importance, excited considerable feeling in England, 
and was the occasion of a strongly-worded note from the British 
to the Belgian government. The murder of King Humbert of Italy 
in July 1900 renewed the outcry against Italian Anarchists. Even 
greater 'horror and indignation were excited by the assassination 
of President McKinley by Czolgoscz on the 6th of September 1901, 
at Buffalo, U.S.A. And a particularly dastardly attempt was 
made to blow up the young king and queen of Spain on their 
wedding-day in 1906. (Ed. E.B.) 



known exponents of Anarchism — Elisee Reclus, Jean Grave, 
Sebastien Faure, Emile Pouget in France; Enrico Malatesta and 
Covelli in Italy; R. Mella, A. Lorenzo, and the mostly unknown 
authors of many excellent manifestos in Spain ; John Most amongst 
the Germans; Spies, Parsons and their followers in the United 
States, and so on; while Domela Nieuwenhuis occupies an 
intermediate position in Holland. The chief Anarchist papers 
which have been published since 1 880 also belong to that direction ; 
while a number of Anarchists of this direction have joined 
the so-called Syndicalist movement — the French name for the 
non-political Labour movement, devoted to direct struggle 
with capitalism, which has lately become so prominent in 

As one of the Anarchist-Communist direction, the present 
writer for many years endeavoured to develop the following 
ideas: to show the intimate, logical connexion which exists 
between the modern philosophy of natural sciencesandAnarchism ; 
to put Anarchism on a scientific basis by the study of the tendencies 
that are apparent now in society and may indicate its further 
evolution; and to work out the basis of Anarchist ethics. As 
regards the substance of Anarchism itself, it was Kropotkin's 
aim to prove that Communism — at least partial — has more 
chances of being established than Collectivism, especially in 
communes taking the lead, and that Free, or Anarchist-Com- 
munism is the only form of Communism that has any chance 
of being accepted in civilized societies; Communism and 
Anarchy are therefore two terms of evolution which complete 
each other, the one rendering the other possible and acceptable. 
He has tried, moreover, to indicate how, during a revolutionary 
period, a large city — if its inhabitants have accepted the idea — ■ 
could organize itself on the lines of Free Communism; the city 
guaranteeing to every inhabitant dwelling, food and clothing to 
an extent corresponding to the comfort now available to the 
middle classes only, in exchange for a half-day's, or a five-hours' 
work; and how all those things which would be considered as 
luxuries might be obtained by every one if he joins for the other 
half of the day all sorts of free associations pursuing all possible 
aims — educational, literary, scientific, artistic, sports and so on. 
In order to prove the first of these assertions he has analysed the 
possibilities of agriculture and industrial work, both being 
combined with brain work. And in order to elucidate the main 
factors of human evolution, he has analysed the part played in 
history by the popular constructive agencies of mutual aid and 
the historical role of the state. 

Without naming himself an Anarchist, Leo Tolstoy, like his 
predecessors in the popular religious movements of the 15 th and 
16th centuries, Chojecki, Denk and many others, took the 
Anarchist position as regards the state and property rights, 
deducing his conclusions from the general spirit of the teachings 
of the Christ and from the necessary dictates of reason. With 
all the might of his talent he made (especially in The Kingdom 
of God in Yourselves) a powerful criticism of the church, the 
state and law altogether, and especially of the present property 
laws. He describes the state as the domination of the 
wicked ones, supported by brutal force. Robbers, he says, 
are far less dangerous than a well-organized government. He 
makes a searching criticism of the prejudices which are current 
now concerning the benefits conferred upon men by the church, 
the state and the existing distribution of property, and from the 
teachings of the Christ he deduces the rule of non-resistance 
and the absolute condemnation of all wars. His religious 
arguments are, however, so well combined with arguments 
borrowed from a dispassionate observation of the present evils, 
that the anarchist portions of his works appeal to the religious 
and the non-religious reader alike. 

It would be impossible to represent here, in a short sketch, the 
penetration, on the one hand, of Anarchist ideas into modern 
literature, and the influence, on the other hand, which the 
libertarian ideas of the best comtemporary writers have exercised 
upon the development of Anarchism. One ought to consult 
the ten big volumes of the Supplement UtUraire to the paper 
La r&voltc and later the Temps nouveaux, which contain repro- 

ductions from the works of hundreds of modern authors express- 
ing Anarchist ideas, in order to realize how closely Anarchism 
is connected with all the intellectual movement of our own times. 
J. S. Mill's Liberty, Spencer's Individual versus The Slate, Marc 
Guyau's Morality without Obligation or Sanction, and Fouillee's 
La morale, I'art et la religion, the works of Multatuli (E. Douwes 
Dekker), Richard Wagner's Art and Revolution, the works of 
Nietzsche, Emerson, W. Lloyd Garrison, Thoreau, Alexander 
Herzen, Edward Carpenter and so on; and in the domain of 
fiction, the dramas of Ibsen, the poetry of Walt Whitman, 
Tolstoy's War and Peace, Zola's Paris and Le travail, the latest 
works of Merezhkovsky, and an infinity of works of less known 
authors, — are full of ideas which show how closely Anarchism is 
interwoven with the work that is going on in modern thought 
in the same direction of enfranchisement of man from the bonds 
of the state as well as from those of capitalism. 

Bibliography. — William Godwin, An Enquiry concerning Political 
Justice and its Influence on General Virtue and. Happiness, 1st edition, 
2 vols. (1793). Mutualism: — John Gray, A Lscture on Human 
Happiness (1825); The Social System, a Treatise on the Principles 
of Exchange ( 1 83 1 ) ; Proudhon, Qu'est-ce que la propriete ? ler memoir e 
(1840) (Eng. trans, by B. Tucker); Idee generate sur la revolution 
(1851); Confession d'un revolutionnaire (1849); Contradictions 
economiques (1846); Josiah Warren, Practicable Details of Equitable 
Commerce (New Yoik, 1852); True Civilization (Boston, 1863); 
Stephen Pearl Andrews, The Science of Society (1851); Cost, the 
Limit of Price; Moses Hess, " Sozialismus und Communismus, 
Philosophic der That " (on Herwegh's Ein-und-Zwanzig Bogen aus 
der Schweiz, 1843); Karl Griin, Die soziale. Bewegung in Frankreich 
und Belgien(i845) ; W. Marr, Dasjunge DeutscHland (1845). Anarch- 
ist Individualism: — Max Stirner (J. K. Schmidt), Der Einzige und 
sein Eigenthum (1845) (Fr. trans., 1900) ; J. H. Mackay, Max 
Stirner, sein Leben und sein Werk (1898) ; V. Basch, V Individualisme 
anarchiste (1904). Transition period : — J. Dejacque, Les Lazareennes 
(1851); Le Libertaire, weekly, New York, 1858-1861, containing 
L'Humanisphere (re-edited at Brussels, Bibl. des temps nouveaux). 
Anarchist Collectivism of the International: — The papers Egalite, 
Progres (Locle), Solidarite; James Guillaume, Idies sur V organisation 
sociale (1876); Bulletin de la federation^-gurassienne (1872-1879); 
A. Schwitzguebel, CEuvres; Paul Brousse\ Le Suffrage universel 
(1874) ; V'Etat a Versailles et dans V association Internationale (1874) ; 
newspaper V 'Avant-garde (suppressed 1878) ; Arthur Arnould, 
L'£tat et la revolution (1877); Histoire populaire de la commune 
(3 vols., 1878) ; Cesar de Paepe, in Rive gauche and La liberte (1867- 
1883). Ma riy others are in the Comptes rendus of the congresses of 
the International Working Men's Association. All these ideas, 
conceived as a whole, may be found in Bakunin's Federalisme, 
socialisme ehanti-theologisme, published first in portions under the 
names of L'Empire knouto-germanique, Dieu et I'etat, The State-Idea 
and Anarchy (Russian), and only now reproduced in full in his 
CEuvres (Paris, 1905 and seq.) ; Sozialpolitischer Briefwechsel (1894); 
Statuts de I'alliance internationale (1868); Proposition motivee au 
comite central de la ligue de la paix etdela liberte(i868). The famous 
Revolutionary Catechism attributed to Bakunin, was not his work. 
Biographie von Michael Bakunin, by Dr M. Nettlan, 3 large vols., 
contains masses of letters, &c. (hectographed in 50 copies; in all 
chief libraries). 

Modern Anarchism. — The best sources are the collections of 
newspapers which, although compelled sometimes to change their 
names, were run for considerable lengths of time and are appearing 
still: J. Most, Freiheit, since 1878; Le Revolle — La Revolte — Temps 
nouveaux, since 1878; Domela Nieuwenhuis, Recht voor Allen, 
since 1878; Freedom, since 1886; Le Libertaire; Pouget's Pere 
Pesuard; Reveil-Risveglio ; see Nettlan's Bibliographic These 
papers and a great number of pamphlets are indispensable for 
those who intend to know anarchism, as the works published in 
book form are not numerous. Of the latter only a few will be 
mentioned : — Elisee Reclus, Evolution and Revolution, many editions 
in all languages; " Anarchy by an Anarchist," in Contemp. Review 
(May, 1884); The Ideal and Youth (1895); Jean Grave, La Societe 
au lendemain de la revolution, many editions since 1882; La Societe 
mourante et I'anarchie (1893); L' Autonomic selon la science (1882); 
La SocietS future (1895); V Anarchic, son but, ses moyens; Sebastien 
Faure, La Douleur universelle (1892); A. Hamon, Les Hommes et les 
theories de I'anarchie (1893) ; P sychologie de V ' anarchisle-socialiste 
(1895); Enrico Malatesta, Fra Contadini, transl. in all languages — 
Eng. trans. A Talk about Anarchist Communism, in " Freedom 
Pamphlets" (1891); Anarchy (do. 1892); Au cafe; and many 
other Italian pamphlets, as also several papers started at variot; 
times in Italy under different names: F. S. Merlino, Socialismo c 
Monopolismo? (1887). Pamphlets,. reviews and papers by P. Gori 
L. Molinari, E. Covelli, &c. The manifestos of the Spanish Federa- 
tions contain excellent expositions of Anarchism; cf. also many 
books, pamphlets and papers by J. Llufias y Pujals, J. Serrano y 
Oteiza, Ricardo Mella, A. Lorenzo, &c. John Most, the paper 



Freiheil, of which a few articles only have been reprinted as 
pamphlets in the Internationale Biblioihek (" The Deistic Pestilence," 
" The Beast of Property " in English) ; Memoiren, 3 fascicules. 
F. Domela Nieuwenhuis, Le Socialisme en danger (1895) ; C. Malato, 
Philosophie de I'anarchie (1890); Charlotte Wilson, Anarchism 
(" Fabian Tracts," 4); Anarchism and Violence (" Freedom Pam- 
phlets ") ; Albert Parsons, Anarchism, its Philosophy and Scientific 
Basis (Chicago, 1888); The Chicago Martyrs: Speeches in Court; 
P. Kropotkin, Paroles a" un revolte (1884); Conquest of Bread (1906) 
(1st French ed. in 1890) ; Anarchist Morality ; Anarchy ; its Philosophy 
and Ideals ; A narchist Communism ; The State, its Historic Role ; 
and other " Freedom Pamphlets "; Fields, Factories and Workshops 
(5th popular edition, 1807) ; Mutual Aid: a Factor of Evolution 
(1904). Modern Individualist Anarchists: — B. Tucker, the paper 
Liberty (1892 sqq.); Instead of a Book, by one too busy to write one 
(Boston, 1893); Dyer Lum, Social Problems (1883); Lysander 
Spooner, Natural Law, or the Science of Justice (Boston, 1891). 
Religious Anarchists : — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God in Your- 
selves ; My Faith ; Confession ; &c. 

The best work on Anarchism, and in fact the only one written with 
full knowledge of the Anarchist literature, and quite fairly, is by a 
German judge Dr Paul Eltzbacher, Anarchismus (transl. in all chief 
European languages, except English). Prof. Adler's article " Anarch- 
ismus " in Conrad's Handworterbuch der Staatswissenschaften, vol. i., 
is less accurate for modern times than for the earlier periods. G. v. 
Zenker, Der Anarchismus (1895); and Prof. Edmund Bernatzik, 
" Der Anarchismus," in Schmoller's Jahrbuch, may also be men- 
tioned — the remainder being written with absolute want of know- 
ledge of the subject. 

A most important work is the reasoned Bibliographie de I'anarchie, 
by Dr M. Nettlan (Brussels, 1897, 8vo, 294 ff.), written with a full 
knowledge of the subject and its immense literature. (P. A. K.) 

ANASTASIUS, the name of four popes. 

Anastasius I., pope from 399-401. Heitwaswho condemned 
the writings of Origen shortly after their translation into Latin. 

Anastasius II., pope from 496-498. He lived in the time of 
the schism of Acacius Of Constantinople. He showed some 
tendency towards conciliation, and thus brought upon himself 
the lively reproaches of the author of the Liber ponliftcalis. On 
the strength of this tradition, Dante has placed this pope in hell. 

Anastasius III., pope from 911-913, was a Roman by birth. 
Practically nothing is recorded of him, his pontificate falling 
in the period when Rome was in the power of the Roman nobles. 

Anastasius IV. was pope from 11 53 to 11 54. He was a 
Roman named Conrad, son of Benedictus, and at the time of 
his election, on the 9th of July 1153, was cardinal bishop of 
Sabina. He had taken part in the double election of 11 30, 
had been one of the most determined opponents of Anacletus II. 
and, when Innocent II. fled to France, had been left behind 
as his vicar in Italy. During his short pontificate, however, 
he played the part of a peacemaker; he came to terms with 
the emperor Frederick I. in the vexed question of the appoint- 
ment to the see of Magdeburg and closed the long quarrel, which 
had raged through four pontificates, about the appointment 
of William Fitzherbert (d. 1 1 54) — commonly known as St William 
of York — to the see of York, by sending him the pallium, in 
spite of the continued opposition of the powerful Cistercian 
order. Anastasius died on the 3rd of December 11 54, and was 
succeeded by Cardinal Nicholas of Albano as Adrian IV. 

ANASTASIUS I. (c. 430-518), Roman emperor, was born at 
Dyrrhachium not later than a.d. 430. At the time of the death 
of Zeno (491), Anastasius, a palace official {silentiarius) , held a 
very high character, and was raised to the throne of the Roman 
empire of the East, through the choice of Ariadne, Zeno's widow, 
who married him shortly after his accession. His reign, though 
afterwards disturbed by foreign and intestine wars and religious 
distractions, commenced auspiciously. He gained the popular 
favour by a judicious remission of taxation, and displayed great 
vigour and energy in administering the affairs of the empire. 
The principal wars in which Anastasius was engaged were those 
known as the Isaurian and the Persian. The former (492-496) 
was stirred up by the supporters of Longinus, the brother of 
Zeno. The victory of Cotyaeum in 493 " broke the back " of 
the revolt, but a guerilla warfare continued in the Isaurian 
mountains for some years longer. In the war with Persia (502- 
505), Theodosiopolis and Amida were captured by the enemy, 
but the Persian provinces also suffered severely and the Romans 
recovered Amida.. Both adversaries were exhausted when 

peace was made (506) on the basis of status quo. Anastasius 
afterwards built the strong fortress of Daras to hold Nisibis in 
check. The Balkan provinces were devastated by invasions of 
Slavs and Bulgarians; to protect Constantinople and its vicinity 
against them he built the " Anastasian wall," extending from 
the Propontis to the Euxine. The emperor was a convinced 
Monophysite, but his ecclesiastical policy was moderate; he 
endeavoured to maintain the principle of the Henolikon of 
Zeno and the peace of the church. It was the uncompromising 
attitude of the orthodox extremists, and the rebellious demonstra- 
tions of the Byzantine populace, that drove him in 51 2 to abandon 
this policy and adopt a monophysitic programme. His con- 
sequent unpopularity in the European provinces was utilized 
by an ambitious man, named Vitalian, to organize a dangerous 
rebellion, in which he was assisted by a horde of " Huns " 
(514-515); it was finally suppressed by a naval victory won by 
the general Marinus. The financial policy of Anastasius was 
so prudent and economical that it gained him a reputation for 
avarice and contributed to his unpopularity. He died in 518. 

Authorities. — Sources: Joshua the Stylite, Chronicle, ed. 
Wright, with English translation, Cambridge, 1882; Marcellinus, 
Chronicle; Zachariah of Mytilene, Chronicle (Eng. trans, by Hamilton 
and Brooks, London, 1899); Evagrius, Ecclesiastical History; 
John Lydus, De Magistratibus; John Malalas, Chronicle. Modern 
works: Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol. iv. (ed. Bury); Bury, Later 
Roman Empire, vol. i, 

ANASTASIUS II. (d. 721), Roman emperor in the East, whose 
original name was Artemius, was raised to the throne of Con- 
stantinople by the voice of the senate and people in a.d. 713, 
on the deposition of Philippicus, whom he had served in the 
capacity of secretary. The empire was threatened by the 
Saracens both by land and sea, and Anastasius sent an army 
under Leo the Isaurian, afterwards emperor, to defend Syria; 
adopted wise and resolute measures for the defence of his 
capital; attempted to reorganize the discipline of the army; 
and equipped and despatched to Rhodes a formidable naval 
force, with orders not only to resist the approach of the enemy, 
but to destroy their naval stores. The troops of the Opsikian 
province, resenting the emperor's strict measures, mutinied, 
slew the admiral, and proclaimed Theodosius, a person of low 
extraction, emperor. After a six months' siege, Constantinople 
was taken by Theodosius; and Anastasius, who had fled to 
Nicaea, was compelled to submit to the new emperor, and, 
retiring to Thessalonica, becameamonk (716). In 721 he headed 
a revolt against Leo, who had succeeded Theodosius, and 
receiving a considerable amount of support, laid siege to Con- 
stantinople; but the enterprise failed, and Anastasius, falling 
into Leo's hands, was put to death by his orders. 

Authorities. — Sources: Theophanes, Chronicle; Nicephorus 
Patriarches, Breviarium. Modern works : Gibbon, Decline and Fall, 
vol. v. (ed. Bury) ; Bury, Later Roman Empire, vol. ii. 

ANASTOMOSIS (a Greek word in which the second is long, 
from avao-TOixovv, to furnish with a mouth or outlet) , the inter- 
communication between two vessels; a word used in vegetable 
and animal anatomy for the communication between channels 
(arteries and veins) containing fluid, and also for the crossing 
between the veins or branches of leaves, trees, insect-wings or 
river-connexions, and by analogy in art-design. 

ANATASE, one of the three mineral forms of titanium dioxide. 
It is always- found as small, isolated and sharply developed 
crystals, and like rutile, a more commonly occurring modification 
of titanium dioxide, it crystallizes in the tetragonal system; 
but, although the degree of symmetry is the same for both, there 
is no relation between the interfacial angles of the two minerals, 
except, of course, in the prism-zone of 45° and 90 . The common 
pyramid lin} (fig. 1) of anatase, 1 parallel to the faces of which 
there are perfect cleavages, has an angle over the polar edge of 
82° 9', the corresponding angle (1 1 1) : (11 1) of rutile being 56 52!'. 
It was on account of this steeper pyramid of anatase that the 
mineral was named, by R. J. Hauy in 1801, from the Gr. 
dvaratris, "extension," the vertical axis of the crystals being 
longer than in rutile. There are also important differences 
1 For the notation see Crystallography.